IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

HENRY N. HARPER, A638-859

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:11-cv-1116 

 Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge King

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS,

et al.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

On December 19, 2011, the United States Magistrate Judge

recommended that this action be dismissed. Report and Recommendation,

Doc. No. 6. This matter is now before the Court on plaintiff’s

objections to that recommendation. Motion to Object to Magistrate’s

Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 11. Defendants oppose the

objections. Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s

Objections to Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 12. The Court will

consider the matter de novo. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b). 

The Complaint, Doc. No. 5, names as defendants the Ohio Fifth

District Court of Appeals and three judges of that court who “affirmed

the Trial Court’s verdict on inconsient [sic] and incorrect information

and then published this information on the Westlaw website, therefore

committing Slander and Libel . . . .” Id., p. 4. Attached to the

Complaint is a copy of the decision about which plaintiff apparently

complains, which affirmed plaintiff’s conviction on various criminal

charges. State of Ohio v. Henry Harper, No. 2010-CA-44, 2011 WL 4011642

Case: 2:11-cv-01116-GLF-NMK Doc #: 13 Filed: 05/02/12 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
(Ohio App. 5 Dist. September 9, 2011). The Magistrate Judge construed

the Complaint as asking this Court to review the state appellate court

judgment. Because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine divests “‘lower federal

courts . . . from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final statecourt judgments,’” the Magistrate Judge recommended that the action be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Report and

Recommendation (quoting Marks v. Tennessee, 554 F.3d 619, 622 (6th Cir.

2009).

In his objections, plaintiff complains that the Magistrate

Judge misconstrued the allegations of the Complaint. Rather than seeking

review by this Court of the judgment of the state court, plaintiff

asserts, the “Complaint is addressing the improper conduct of the Fifth

District Court of Appeals by the publication of Slanderious [sic] and

Libelious [sic] material on Westlaw Website.” Motion to Object to

Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, p. 2. 

This Court rejects plaintiff’s characterization of the claims

asserted in this action. Although it invokes state tort law, this case

challenges the validity of the judgment of the state court: “. . . the

Fifth District Court of Appeals Judges . . . TOOK the Prosecutor’s Brief

for a fact and made a judgement on false materials, and PUBLISHED it on

Westlaw Website, therefore committing Slander and Libel against the

Plaintiff . . . .” Id. Even accepting at face value plaintiff’s

assertion of state law tort claims, those claims cannot proceed in this

Court. Civil claims that, if successful, “would necessarily imply the

invalidity” of a prior conviction or sentence, cannot proceed in federal

courts. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). Because plaintiff’s

success on his claims of libel or slander would necessarily imply the

2

Case: 2:11-cv-01116-GLF-NMK Doc #: 13 Filed: 05/02/12 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
invalidity of his state court convictions, this Court concludes that

plaintiff’s action cannot proceed in this Court.

Plaintiff’s objections to the Report and Recommendation, Doc. No.

11, are DENIED. The Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 6, is ADOPTED

AND AFFIRMED.

This action is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter

FINAL JUDGMENT in this case.

Moreover, the Court concludes that an appeal from that judgment

would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

 /s/ Gregory L. Frost 

 Gregory L. Frost

 United States District Judge 

3

Case: 2:11-cv-01116-GLF-NMK Doc #: 13 Filed: 05/02/12 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>